CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Latanya Billings v. Dime Savings Bank

Claimant, a quality control analyst, was terminated by her employer after sustaining a non-work-related back injury and collecting disability benefits. She alleged that her termination was in retaliation for filing a disability claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the claimant in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241 by terminating her due to her disability claim. The employer appealed, arguing that the termination was an inadvertent misinterpretation of its job guarantee policy. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inference of intentional, retaliatory conduct were supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted for further development on the issue of damages.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Workers' Compensation Law § 241Job Guarantee Policy ViolationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate AffirmationCredibility Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Semmler v. County of Monroe

Plaintiff Kristin L. Semmler, a former Monroe County employee, sued the County of Monroe alleging unlawful retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed same-sex harassment by a coworker and subsequent retaliatory actions, including termination, after filing complaints and EEOC charges. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff lacked a good faith belief in unlawful discrimination and failed to file a notice of claim for the NYSHRL claim. The court granted summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not have a reasonable belief that the coworker's conduct constituted gender-based discrimination under Title VII, and dismissed the NYSHRL claim due to the plaintiff's failure to meet notice of claim requirements.

RetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentSame-Sex HarassmentProtected ActivityProvisional EmploymentWrongful Termination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Fowler v. SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff Ruth Fowler, an exotic dancer, sued Scores Holding Company, Inc., alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions at Scores West, invoking the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law. Scores Holding moved to dismiss, arguing Fowler was an independent contractor and not its employee. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Fowler sufficiently alleged an employee relationship and that Scores Holding could be considered her employer under the single and joint employer doctrines. The court concluded that Fowler's claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions were facially plausible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWage DeductionsIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationJoint EmployerMotion to DismissFederal Civil ProcedureHuman Rights LawLabor Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Cornell University

This age discrimination lawsuit involves plaintiffs Edward W. Austin and Henry L. McPeak, former seasonal golf course rangers, suing Cornell University and individual defendants Richard Costello and William Szabo. Plaintiffs allege age discrimination after Cornell decided not to rehire them for the 1993 golf season. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding unlawful refusal to hire, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning discriminatory intent. However, summary judgment was granted for unlawful termination claims, as plaintiffs were seasonal employees. The court also denied the motion to dismiss individual defendants, confirming their potential liability under ADEA given their supervisory control. Finally, the defendants' motion to strike a paragraph referring to settlement discussions was granted.

Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA)Summary Judgment MotionUnlawful Refusal to HireSeasonal EmployeesIndividual Supervisor LiabilityPretextual DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseEmployment DecisionCornell UniversityGolf Course Rangers
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,877 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational